Well, we own a restaurant, and the christmas season has a lot of companies celebrating christmas for their staff at our restaurant, and the Bald Angels of course are expected to sing and play at each of these, so we had a lot of work. But we are closed for the next two days. There will be a big New Year's Eve costume party too. This year's motto is "Pirates", in the years before we had "BDSM" and "Animals".

... "Monstrous Regiment" and am a bit disappointed. Well, only in a certain way, that is. because the lesbian relaionship between Tonkers and Lofty is at best hinted at. They remind me of the movie "Thelma and Louise" (they even share initials with the heroines of that movie), but there was no sexual relationship between the two leading female characters in that movie, and I am not convinced there is one between Tonkers and Lofty.

Last edited by BaldJean on Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The sexual relationship is implicit even though it's not 'open' in that Polly takes it that Tonks is a boy at first (she's almost as good as Polly at being a boy) and that he's' Lofty's lover in that configuration. The Thelma & Louise corelation is entirely valid and far more appropriate (now I see it ) as those 2 women's core relationship equates to the type of 'buddy' relationship that's wholly sympathetic to a 'best-buddy watch each other's back' arrangement that soldiering is all about.

With Lofty being so fragile and damaged I think in some ways their lovers status is not that important to the central story because of her being so badly abused - in that situation I think that it's the protective, nurturing, almost motherly role that Tonks primarily displays throughout, regardless of the sexual side of it that's far more important and indeed absolutely feminine and sympathetic. That also applies to the buddy male soldiers connection, but it's far easier to see when we know they're both female

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

Tonyblack wrote:To be fair, the sex is only hinted at in all the Pratchett books. He doesn't write those sort of books. I liked the way that he left it to your imagination about their history.

Well, it is true that Pratchett's books never contain passages like "Her voluptuous breats heaved in anticipation as her hands eagerly touched his erect member", but at least he gives some hints like "A few minutes later the springs of the bed went 'glink'".

Love the Thelma and Louise connection that you got. As a huge film fan, I love those line of references. Also I like it when Terry lets you assume things about characters relationships as opposed to going and spelling it right out. Sex scenes, or implictions of them can be fun to read once, but its much more fun trying to figure out whats going on for onesself.

The sexual relationship is implicit even though it's not 'open' in that Polly takes it that Tonks is a boy at first (she's almost as good as Polly at being a boy) and that he's' Lofty's lover in that configuration. The Thelma & Louise corelation is entirely valid and far more appropriate (now I see it ) as those 2 women's core relationship equates to the type of 'buddy' relationship that's wholly sympathetic to a 'best-buddy watch each other's back' arrangement that soldiering is all about.

With Lofty being so fragile and damaged I think in some ways their lovers status is not that important to the central story because of her being so badly abused - in that situation I think that it's the protective, nurturing, almost motherly role that Tonks primarily displays throughout, regardless of the sexual side of it that's far more important and indeed absolutely feminine and sympathetic. That also applies to the buddy male soldiers connection, but it's far easier to see when we know they're both female

The name is Tonkers, not Tonks; Tonks is a character from Harry Potter

Dotsie wrote:I'm confused - are you disappointed that they are in a lesbian relationship but it's only "at best hinted at", or that they aren't because you aren't convinced by it?

Jean and were disappointed because it was in our opinion anything but clear that they were in a lesbian relationship. We would not have needed the details; we can provide them ourselves, and believe you me, that is much better than reading about it!